("Politics that work" could of course justify fascism, communism or any other -ism. So let's say that by "work", I not only mean look after the interests of the country, but which come closest to my own moral code.)

Examples. I do believe — I'll duck now — that Thatcher's election in 1979 was the best thing that could have happened — at the time — simply because Callaghan's government was useless. Subsequently, Thatcher went mad and was quite rightly kicked out. The tragedy of the Thatcher years is that for so long there was no electable alternative: I still get fits of giggles at the thought of Neil Kinnock being Prime Minister.

Abroad, the Socialist government of Felipe Gonzalez in Spain was exactly what the country needed after decades of Franco's rule to set the country firmly on the course to modern democracy (King Juan Carlos is one of my heroes: he inherited the absolute powers that Franco had enjoyed, and gave them away to an elected parliament). However, over time, FG's government outstayed its welcome. Likewise in Britain, the previous bunch of clowns that had the nerve to call themselves our government became so bound up by dogma and so corrupt they no longer deserved the privilege of power, and were rightly thrown out at the 1997 General Election.

However, it won't work for much longer. The world is getting more and more republican; national boundaries are blurring. Once upon a time the monarch served a function: first as a strong man to hold the country together, later as a focal point for the national consciousness. This is the idea of kingship. In some respects the notion of kingship is still relevant, but that doesn't mean you need a king. Watch "The West Wing" to see how kingship can continue to thrive in a republic, without the concomitant embarrassments of idiot younger royals, aging and impatient heirs apparent, and the (occasional) feeling that the whole caboodle is a waste of money.

There was a time when anti-republicans were known to make some wise crack like "two words: President Thatcher", and sit back with smug smiles on their faces, expecting the republican movement to crumble beneath their unassailable logic. (To tell the truth, the same concept could be expressed today with "President Blair".) The thought of President Thatcher as supreme head of the British government is indeed pretty scary; President Thatcher as a narrowly defined head of state is another matter. In other words, I'm talking about a system like the one found in Germany. The Chancellor is head of the government, and answerable to the people's representatives for what he does. The President is head of state: a figurehead, but a wise and experienced politician, mature enough to rise above the party game, and someone the German people have chosen to represent them. To win the trust of the people for such a position is a far greater feat than to inherit the job.

So, here's Ben's solution to the monarchy. Pay attention at the back. We keep the monarchy as it is now, for the moment. King Charles III announces that he will be the last monarch of Great Britain, and that he is now going to set the movement towards a republic in motion. The power of the monarchy is gradually phased out in favour of a president (who might well be one C. Windsor: he would probably have the popularity to swing it). Thus 1000 years of generally glorious history comes peacefully and inevitably to an end. The monarch is in charge all the way, with a guiding hand on events. Everything is under control.

The alternative: the monarchy goes down kicking and screaming, all semblance of dignity gone. Your choice.

My solution might be hard luck on Wills, but ultimately it'll do the boy a favour. That will be a fiver, Ma'am.